Sher Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Pratap, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The appellant is a peon whose appointment was terminated on the ground that prior to his appointment, he was convicted for an offence under the Excise Act. The appellant had accordingly impugned this order by filing the civil suit, which was decreed in his favour. The State filed appeal against the same, which was allowed. The respondent-plaintiff, Sher Singh, is before this Court in Regular Second Appeal. The appellant was appointed as Peon on 22.09.1982 and was terminated on 07.11.1983. The suit was filed on 23.11.1985. This was on the basis of show cause notice issued to him on

20.10.1983 as to why he should not be terminated as he stood convicted for offence under the Excise Act. After conviction, the appellant was released on probation. The First Appellate Court basically relied upon the terms and conditions of his appointment, which has also been highlighted Regular Second Appeal No. 2521 of 1986 2 by the State counsel to point out that one of the conditions contained in the appointment letter of the appellant was that his posting was provisional and subject to the verification of character and antecedents from the police authorities. Detailed reference to this aspect was made and also to the effect that the appellant had concealed the information of his conviction under the provisions of the Excise Act. Taking this to be good reason, to remove or to terminate the services of the appellant, the First Appellate Court had held this order justified in law. As per the counsel for the appellant, the following substantial question of law would arise in this case :-

1. Whether mere on the basis of conviction an employee can be removed from service especially in the circumstances when he has released on probation and without taking into consideration the conduct which led to the conviction?

2. Whether the Court can go behind the order and grant the necessary relief if found that the reasons assigned is wrong and not justified?

3. Whether the well reasoned judgment of the Ld. Trial Court has been set aside by the Ld. Appellate Court? Undoubtedly, an employee can be removed from service on the basis of conviction for criminal offence. The effect of release on probation of such an employee is also required to be considered. Primarily the conviction alone was not the reasons for terminating the services of the appellant. This was a case of employment being given Regular Second Appeal No. 2521 of 1986 3 to the appellant on the provisional basis and was subject to the verification of his antecedents and character. On verification, it was found that the appellant had been convicted, a fact which he withheld and that reason has been taken into account to terminate the services of the appellant. There may be some justification in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana and another 1996 (4) SLR 40, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has invited attention of the Parliament to consider the aspect of those large number of cases where the employees are tried summarily and are awarded small amounts of fine, as a measure of plea-bargaining. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred this to be a cruel result of a conviction of that kind which lead to end of the career, future or present of the young and inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. It has rightly been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recommended some immediate remedial measures necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences when tried summarily. The above laudable observations have been pressed to say that the offences for which the appellant was convicted in this case could not be termed as serious. No doubt the entire life of the appellant had been put to blast because of this minor infringement by him in his life. The question now has to be considered from the angle whether any relief at this belated stage would be fair, just and Regular Second Appeal No. 2521 of 1986 4 reasonable. The learned State counsel is not much of the mark when he points out that this case would not be a case of termination of service per se on the basis of conviction. A fact that the appellant had made attempt to mislead and hide the factum of conviction can also not be ignored. That aspect may strictly not invite consideration as that was not urged against the appellant while issuing show cause notice. Counsel, however, is justified in drawing my attention to the case of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary versus Sushil Kumar 1997 (1) S.C.T. 474, where the order of the Tribunal setting aside the discharge on the basis of acquittal of offence was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by terming this view not to be a correct view. Since no such issues are arising in this case directly, I am not going to these aspects of the matter. With the efflux of time, the appellant seems to have lost the game. Otherwise there may be something when the counsel contends that it was not fair to dismiss the employee for a minor offence like this, for which he was released on probation, especially so, when viewed in the background of laudable call given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Pawan Kumar's case (supra). In view of the peculiar facts of this case, I am not inclined to interfere in the Regular Second Appeal and would accordingly dismiss the same. March 17, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE